Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

North Carolina approves Duke Energy’s controversial green tariff plan

News Feed
Wednesday, August 14, 2024

A question of ​‘regulatory surplus’ For large customers with 100% clean energy commitments, a green tariff is a necessity in North Carolina, where Duke has a monopoly and cities, data centers, and the like can’t buy clean energy directly from solar farms. In theory, a green tariff allows a company such as Google or Amazon to spur a new supply of clean energy equal to its electric demand, with Duke acting as an administrative go-between. An earlier iteration of Green Source Advantage more or less did just that. But the accounting got more complicated in 2021, when a bipartisan state law required Duke to cut its carbon pollution by at least 95% by 2050. If the company is legally required to build scores of solar farms anyway, can a large customer legitimately claim its sponsorship of one project makes a difference? This question of ​“regulatory surplus” sparked a flurry of arguments and counterarguments before the commission for some 18 months. Duke initially claimed such ​“additionality” was neither feasible nor necessary, and some businesses said chipping in to support the clean energy transition was good enough for them. More than a dozen local chambers of commerce and potential customers wrote to regulators in support of the original program. But Google, the U.S. Department of Defense, and other large customers joined clean energy advocates to flag the problem of regulatory surplus, as did the Center for Resource Solutions, the nonprofit that certifies voluntary renewable energy purchase programs. Duke University, which has no connection to the utility, said it wouldn’t participate in the tariff. ‘A small step in the right direction’  The debate, along with prodding from commissioners, prompted Duke Energy to add a ​“resource acceleration option” to its proposal. The alternative allows large customers to advance about 150 megawatts of solar energy each year by sponsoring projects not selected in the company’s annual competitive bidding process. Every two years, Duke gets retroactive credit for this ​“extra” solar as part of its compliance with the 2021 law.Clean energy advocates believe the new option is a ​“small step in the right direction.” But they note it accounts for 1 gigawatt of clean energy over 10 years, a fifth of the entire program. Customers who lay claim to the remaining 4 gigawatts would not be impacting the state’s transition to clean electricity, they say. ​“If you’re the customer of a business who claims to support our state’s clean energy transition by participating in the program, you’re going to expect that business to be making a difference — not just subsidizing what Duke was going to do anyway,” said Nick Jimenez, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. The Carolinas Clean Energy Business Alliance, a group of clean energy suppliers, also criticized the acceleration option. And though the Carolina Utility Customers Association, another group of large industrial customers, didn’t oppose the amended proposed tariff, it registered skepticism. “[Our] members have little interest in the Resource Acceleration Option,” the group said in a letter to regulators, ​“which would deliver electricity at a premium cost without providing the benefit of regulatory surplus-based environmental attributes that would be useful in meeting corporate environmental, social, and governance goals.” Cause for hope?  While advocates see little good in the commission’s approval of the Green Source Advantage Choice program, they still have some faint cause for hope. One is the so-called Clean Transition Tariff, which Duke could propose later this year. An outgrowth of a May agreement between the utility and Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Nucor, that program could allow participating customers to spur new projects, such as solar–battery storage combos or small nuclear energy, that provide carbon-free electricity around the clock. ​“This is not within the order,” said Jimenez, but the May memorandum of understanding, ​“is the big opportunity for something better.” Duke says the Clean Transition Tariff would be another voluntary option for customers, not a replacement for the one just greenlighted. ​“We see the approval of Green Source Advantage Choice as a first step,” the company’s Stewart said, ​“enabling us to move forward with new tariffs like the Clean Transition Tariff.” Maggie Shober, research director at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, agrees the memorandum of understanding is cause for some optimism. But she also notes that it’s only ​“an agreement to talk about something. It could be an opportunity,” she said, ​“or it could be a missed opportunity. “ And no matter what, the Clean Transition Tariff won’t cater to municipalities and other midsize customers with climate commitments. If these customers decline to pursue Green Source Advantage Choice, their only option is to wait for Duke to adjust. Commissioner Jeffrey A. Hughes pointed to that possibility in a concurring opinion. ​“Once the program offerings are launched, it will quickly become clear whether the program is as attractive as Duke asserts,” Hughes wrote. ​“If concerns continue and interest is modest from the outset, it is my hope that Duke will work quickly on new programs that will have a greater impact.”

This story was first published by Energy News Network . North Carolina regulators have approved a controversial green tariff proposal from Duke Energy, rejecting protests from critics who argue it won’t bolster the company’s transition to zero-carbon electricity. Originally designed as a way for large electric…

A question of ​‘regulatory surplus’

For large customers with 100% clean energy commitments, a green tariff is a necessity in North Carolina, where Duke has a monopoly and cities, data centers, and the like can’t buy clean energy directly from solar farms.

In theory, a green tariff allows a company such as Google or Amazon to spur a new supply of clean energy equal to its electric demand, with Duke acting as an administrative go-between. An earlier iteration of Green Source Advantage more or less did just that.

But the accounting got more complicated in 2021, when a bipartisan state law required Duke to cut its carbon pollution by at least 95% by 2050. If the company is legally required to build scores of solar farms anyway, can a large customer legitimately claim its sponsorship of one project makes a difference?

This question of ​“regulatory surplus” sparked a flurry of arguments and counterarguments before the commission for some 18 months. Duke initially claimed such ​“additionality” was neither feasible nor necessary, and some businesses said chipping in to support the clean energy transition was good enough for them. More than a dozen local chambers of commerce and potential customers wrote to regulators in support of the original program.

But Google, the U.S. Department of Defense, and other large customers joined clean energy advocates to flag the problem of regulatory surplus, as did the Center for Resource Solutions, the nonprofit that certifies voluntary renewable energy purchase programs. Duke University, which has no connection to the utility, said it wouldn’t participate in the tariff.

‘A small step in the right direction’ 

The debate, along with prodding from commissioners, prompted Duke Energy to add a ​“resource acceleration option” to its proposal. The alternative allows large customers to advance about 150 megawatts of solar energy each year by sponsoring projects not selected in the company’s annual competitive bidding process. Every two years, Duke gets retroactive credit for this ​“extra” solar as part of its compliance with the 2021 law.

Clean energy advocates believe the new option is a ​“small step in the right direction.” But they note it accounts for 1 gigawatt of clean energy over 10 years, a fifth of the entire program. Customers who lay claim to the remaining 4 gigawatts would not be impacting the state’s transition to clean electricity, they say.

​“If you’re the customer of a business who claims to support our state’s clean energy transition by participating in the program, you’re going to expect that business to be making a difference — not just subsidizing what Duke was going to do anyway,” said Nick Jimenez, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center.

The Carolinas Clean Energy Business Alliance, a group of clean energy suppliers, also criticized the acceleration option. And though the Carolina Utility Customers Association, another group of large industrial customers, didn’t oppose the amended proposed tariff, it registered skepticism.

“[Our] members have little interest in the Resource Acceleration Option,” the group said in a letter to regulators, ​“which would deliver electricity at a premium cost without providing the benefit of regulatory surplus-based environmental attributes that would be useful in meeting corporate environmental, social, and governance goals.”

Cause for hope? 

While advocates see little good in the commission’s approval of the Green Source Advantage Choice program, they still have some faint cause for hope.

One is the so-called Clean Transition Tariff, which Duke could propose later this year. An outgrowth of a May agreement between the utility and Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Nucor, that program could allow participating customers to spur new projects, such as solar–battery storage combos or small nuclear energy, that provide carbon-free electricity around the clock.

​“This is not within the order,” said Jimenez, but the May memorandum of understanding, ​“is the big opportunity for something better.”

Duke says the Clean Transition Tariff would be another voluntary option for customers, not a replacement for the one just greenlighted. ​“We see the approval of Green Source Advantage Choice as a first step,” the company’s Stewart said, ​“enabling us to move forward with new tariffs like the Clean Transition Tariff.”

Maggie Shober, research director at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, agrees the memorandum of understanding is cause for some optimism. But she also notes that it’s only ​“an agreement to talk about something. It could be an opportunity,” she said, ​“or it could be a missed opportunity. “

And no matter what, the Clean Transition Tariff won’t cater to municipalities and other midsize customers with climate commitments. If these customers decline to pursue Green Source Advantage Choice, their only option is to wait for Duke to adjust.

Commissioner Jeffrey A. Hughes pointed to that possibility in a concurring opinion.

​“Once the program offerings are launched, it will quickly become clear whether the program is as attractive as Duke asserts,” Hughes wrote. ​“If concerns continue and interest is modest from the outset, it is my hope that Duke will work quickly on new programs that will have a greater impact.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

AI power use forecast finds the industry far off track to net zero

Several large tech firms that are active in AI have set goals to hit net zero by 2030, but a new forecast of the energy and water required to run large data centres shows they’re unlikely to meet those targets

A data centre in Ashburn, VirginiaJIM LO SCALZO/EPA/Shutterstock As the AI industry rapidly expands, questions about the environmental impact of data centres are coming to the forefront – and a new forecast warns the industry is unlikely to meet net zero targets by 2030. Fengqi You at Cornell University in New York and his colleagues modelled how much energy, water and carbon today’s leading AI servers could use by 2030, taking into account different growth scenarios and possible data centre locations within the United States. They combined projected chip supply, server power usage and cooling efficiency with state-by-state electrical grid data to conduct their analysis. While not every AI company has set a net zero target, some larger tech firms that are active in AI, such as Google, Microsoft and Meta have set goals with a deadline of 2030. “The rapid growth of AI computing is basically reshaping everything,” says You. “We’re trying to understand how, as a sector grows, what’s going to be the impact?” Their estimates suggest US AI server buildout will require between 731 million and 1.125 billion additional cubic metres of water by 2030, while emitting the equivalent of between 24 and 44 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. The forecast depends on how fast AI demand grows, how many high-end servers can actually be built and where new US data centres are located. The researchers modelled five scenarios based on the speed of growth, and identified various ways to reduce the impact. “Number one is location, location, location,” says You. Placing data centres in Midwestern states, where water is more available and the energy grid is powered by a higher proportion of renewables, can reduce the impact. The team also pinpoints decarbonising energy supplies and improving the efficiency of data centre computing and cooling processes as major ways to limit the impact. Collectively, those three approaches could cut the industry’s emissions by 73 per cent and its water footprint by 86 per cent. But the group’s projections could also be scuppered by public opposition to data centre installations because of their potentially extractive impact on the environment. In Virginia, which hosts about one-eighth of global data centre capacity, residents have begun lodging opposition to further planned construction, citing the impact on their water reserves and the wider environment. Similar petitions against data centres have been lodged in Pennsylvania, Texas, Arizona, California and Oregon. Figures from Data Center Watch, a research firm tracking data centre development, suggests local opposition has stymied $64 billion worth of projects. However, it is unclear, even in places that have successfully rejected data centres, just how much power and water they may use. That is why the new findings have been welcomed – albeit cautiously – by those who have attempted to study and quantify AI’s environmental impact. “AI is such a fast-moving field that it’s really hard to make any kind of meaningful future projections,” says Sasha Luccioni at AI company Hugging Face. “As the authors themselves say, the breakthroughs in the industry could fundamentally alter computing and energy requirements, like what we’ve seen with DeepSeek”, which used different techniques to reduce brute-force computation. Chris Preist at the University of Bristol in the UK says, “the authors are right to point out the need to invest in additional renewable energy capacity”, and adds data centre location matters. “I think their assumptions regarding water use to directly cool AI data centres are pretty pessimistic,” he says, suggesting the model’s “best case” scenario is more like “business as usual” for data centres these days. Luccioni believes the paper highlights what is missing in the AI world: “more transparency”. She explains that could be fixed by “requiring model developers to track and report their compute and energy use, and to provide this information to users and policymakers and to make firm commitments to reduce their overall environmental impacts, including emissions”.

Energy
Water
CO2

Having children plays a complicated role in the rate we age

The effort of reproducing may divert energy away from repairing DNA or fighting illness, which could drive ageing, but a new study suggests that is only the case when environmental conditions are tough

Some say children keep you young, but it’s complicatedJavier Zayas/Getty Images For millennia, we have tried to understand why we age, with the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle proposing it occurs alongside the gradual drying up of the internal moisture necessary for life. In modern times, a leading idea known as the disposable soma hypothesis suggests that ageing is the price we pay for reproduction, with evolution prioritising the passing on of genes above all else. This creates a fundamental trade-off: the immense energy devoted to having and raising offspring comes at the cost of repairing DNA, fighting off illness and keeping organs in good shape. This may particularly apply to women, who invest more in reproduction than men via pregnancy and breastfeeding. However, when scientists have tested this hypothesis by checking if women with more children live shorter lives, the results have been mixed: some studies support the idea, while others have found no effect. “It is very difficult to disentangle what is just correlation [between having more children and a shorter life] and what is the underlying causation, unless you have a good, big dataset that covers several generations,” says Elisabeth Bolund at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, who wasn’t involved in the study. Euan Young at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands and his colleagues hypothesised that the inconsistency between studies exists because the cost of reproduction isn’t fixed – it depends on a mother’s environment. “In good times, this trade-off isn’t really visible. The trade-off only becomes apparent when times are tough,” says Young. To investigate this idea, the researchers analysed the parish records of more than 4500 Finnish women, spanning 250 years. These included the period of the Great Finnish Famine from 1866 to 1868, providing a means to gauge how hard times affect reproduction and longevity, says Young. They found that among the women who lived before or after the famine or who didn’t have children during it, there was no significant association between the number of children they had and their lifespan. However, for the women who did have children during the famine, their life expectancy decreased by six months for every child they had. The study builds on research published last year that used a dataset from a pre-industrial population in Quebec, Canda, monitored over two centuries, which showed this trade-off in mothers who were probably in poor health or under great stress, but didn’t explore how this was affected by specific environmental conditions. In contrast, Young’s team points to a specific, catastrophic event as the driver that exposes the trade-off for mothers. “This very large dataset makes it feasible to account for confounding factors [such as genetics and lifestyle factors],” says Bolund. “The study gets us as close as we can to identifying causation without running a controlled experiment in the lab.” The study also confirms the energetic demands of pregnancy and breastfeeding, which require hundreds of extra calories per day. During a famine, women can’t get this energy from food, so their bodies pay the price, “lowering basal metabolism [the minimum number of calories your body needs to function at a basic level] and thus slowing or shutting down other important functions, resulting in a decline in health and shorter lifespans”, says Young. It also explains why previous studies sometimes found the trade-off only in lower socioeconomic groups, which were effectively always living in relatively resource-scarce environments, he says. According to Bolund, the fact that this trade-off seems to occur in particularly tough circumstances, and when women typically had many children, may partly explain why women generally live longer than men today, with girls born between 2021 and 2023 in the UK expected to live four years longer than their male counterparts. The costs of reproduction are now fairly low in Western societies, where the average number of children women give birth to has reduced considerably over the centuries, says Bolund. As a result, few women today will probably reach the threshold where the cost to their lifetime becomes obvious. Bolund and her colleagues’ research on a historical population in Utah, for instance, found this only appeared when women had more than five children – well below the 1.6 births that the average woman in the US is expected to have in her lifetime. Other environmental factors may therefore become more significant in explaining the lifespan gap between men and women. Men tend to be more likely to smoke than women and also drink more alcohol, which affect lifespan, says Bolund. The current longevity gap between men and women is probably a combination of the latter’s reduced reproductive costs compared with other times in history and lifestyle differences between the sexes. Research also suggests that sex chromosomal differences are involved. “Sexes differ in a multitude of ways, beyond reproductive costs, so we need to conduct more research into how different factors contribute to sex-specific ageing,” says Young.

Energy
Food
Science

Michigan OKs Landmark Regulations That Push Up-Front Costs to Data Centers

Michigan regulators have adopted landmark standards for the booming data center industry with a plan they say tries to protect residents from subsidizing the industry’s hefty energy use

Michigan regulators on Thursday adopted landmark standards for the booming data center industry with a plan they say tries to protect residents from subsidizing the industry’s hefty energy use.In a 3-0 vote, the Michigan Public Service Commission adopted a rate structure that requires data centers and other energy-intensive industries in Consumers Energy’s territory to sign long-term power contracts with steep penalties for exiting early.The order also requires Consumers to show that data centers will shoulder all costs to build transmission lines, substations and other infrastructure before adding them to the grid.Commission Chair Dan Scripps called it a “balanced approach” that shows Michigan is “open for business from data centers and other large load customers, while also leveraging those potential benefits of the growth … in a way that’s good for all customers.”The deal disappointed some environmentalists, who had pushed for explicit requirements that data center power come from renewable sources. Michigan utilities are legally required to achieve 100% clean energy by 2040. They must detail how they plan to meet that requirement in filings next year.“While the order includes important consumer protection terms, the commission missed an opportunity to emphasize the importance of the state’s climate goals,” said Daniel Abrams, an attorney with the Environmental Law and Policy Center. The rate structure applies to customers whose energy use exceeds 100 megawatts. Data centers are among very few industries that demand that much power. Often, they demand an order of magnitude more.Consumers serves 1.9 million customers across much of the Lower Peninsula. Company spokesperson Matt Johnson said officials are still reviewing Thursday’s order and “its impact on all stakeholders.“Consumers Energy intends to work hard to continue to attract new businesses, including data centers, to Michigan, in a way that benefits everyone and fuels the state’s economic development,” he added.The deal comes amid an uncertain time for the data industry, which is growing fast because of artificial intelligence. Much more energy is needed to power the transformation, but many industry analysts fear rising AI stocks are a bubble and demand for the technology won’t materialize, leaving utilities and ratepayers to pick up the infrastructure tab for failed projects.Hoping to avoid such an outcome, Consumers in February proposed special regulations that would lock data centers into 15-year contracts that guarantee consistent electricity use and require payments even if a facility ceases or downsizes operations mid-contract.The commission’s decision Thursday approves much of that request, with some significant modifications. DTE takes a different approach The other big utility in Michigan, DTE Energy, is taking a different approach.Rather than establishing a blanket rate structure like Consumers, DTE wants to negotiate its first data center contract individually while aiming to avoid public vetting of the deal.Michigan law allows such expedited reviews in cases that would bring no added costs to utility consumers. DTE officials argue adding the Stargate data center to its system will help keep rates down for everyone by spreading fixed costs among more paying customers. “Given the sizable affordability benefits for our customers, as well as the economic impact the project will have, we think moving forward in this fashion makes the most sense,” spokesperson Jill Wilmot said.But DTE officials also stated in its filing that the company expects to spend some $500 million upgrading its transmission system and building a substation to serve the data center. Critics argue the utility is so intentionally vague it is impossible to vet DTE’s claims about affordability.“It’s just highly concerning that they are trying to keep this somewhat private, because there’s so much at stake,” said Bryan Smigielski, a Michigan organizer with the Sierra Club.Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel also opposes DTE’s quest for expedited review, and has requested a thorough vetting of the proposed contract.Members of the Public Service Commission have not decided whether to grant DTE’s request for quick approval, Scripps said.Michigan’s data center electricity rate deliberations come amid a surge of interest from developers looking to take advantage of new tax breaks that could save the industry tens of millions of dollars. Lawmakers last year voted to exempt large data centers from Michigan’s 6% sales and use tax in an effort to lure the industry to Michigan.Beyond the Stargate campus, DTE is in late-stage negotiations for another 3 gigawatts’ worth of data center capacity, while Consumers Energy is nearing deals for three large data centers amounting to a collective 2 gigawatts of power.Developers are also scoping out rural land throughout the southern Lower Peninsula, from the Grand Rapids area to the outskirts of Monroe.The wave of interest could have big implications for water and land use in Michigan. Hyperscale data centers occupy hundreds of acres apiece. Those that use water vapor to cool the servers inside the facilities — the industry’s most common cooling technique — also use large amounts of water.This story was originally published by Bridge Michigan and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Energy
Business
Land Use

Why some quantum materials stall while others scale

In a new study, MIT researchers evaluated quantum materials’ potential for scalable commercial success — and identified promising candidates.

People tend to think of quantum materials — whose properties arise from quantum mechanical effects — as exotic curiosities. But some quantum materials have become a ubiquitous part of our computer hard drives, TV screens, and medical devices. Still, the vast majority of quantum materials never accomplish much outside of the lab.What makes certain quantum materials commercial successes and others commercially irrelevant? If researchers knew, they could direct their efforts toward more promising materials — a big deal since they may spend years studying a single material.Now, MIT researchers have developed a system for evaluating the scale-up potential of quantum materials. Their framework combines a material’s quantum behavior with its cost, supply chain resilience, environmental footprint, and other factors. The researchers used their framework to evaluate over 16,000 materials, finding that the materials with the highest quantum fluctuation in the centers of their electrons also tend to be more expensive and environmentally damaging. The researchers also identified a set of materials that achieve a balance between quantum functionality and sustainability for further study.The team hopes their approach will help guide the development of more commercially viable quantum materials that could be used for next generation microelectronics, energy harvesting applications, medical diagnostics, and more.“People studying quantum materials are very focused on their properties and quantum mechanics,” says Mingda Li, associate professor of nuclear science and engineering and the senior author of the work. “For some reason, they have a natural resistance during fundamental materials research to thinking about the costs and other factors. Some told me they think those factors are too ‘soft’ or not related to science. But I think within 10 years, people will routinely be thinking about cost and environmental impact at every stage of development.”The paper appears in Materials Today. Joining Li on the paper are co-first authors and PhD students Artittaya Boonkird, Mouyang Cheng, and Abhijatmedhi Chotrattanapituk, along with PhD students Denisse Cordova Carrizales and Ryotaro Okabe; former graduate research assistants Thanh Nguyen and Nathan Drucker; postdoc Manasi Mandal; Instructor Ellan Spero of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering (DMSE); Professor Christine Ortiz of the Department of DMSE; Professor Liang Fu of the Department of Physics; Professor Tomas Palacios of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS); Associate Professor Farnaz Niroui of EECS; Assistant Professor Jingjie Yeo of Cornell University; and PhD student Vsevolod Belosevich and Assostant Professor Qiong Ma of Boston College.Materials with impactCheng and Boonkird say that materials science researchers often gravitate toward quantum materials with the most exotic quantum properties rather than the ones most likely to be used in products that change the world.“Researchers don’t always think about the costs or environmental impacts of the materials they study,” Cheng says. “But those factors can make them impossible to do anything with.”Li and his collaborators wanted to help researchers focus on quantum materials with more potential to be adopted by industry. For this study, they developed methods for evaluating factors like the materials’ price and environmental impact using their elements and common practices for mining and processing those elements. At the same time, they quantified the materials’ level of “quantumness” using an AI model created by the same group last year, based on a concept proposed by MIT professor of physics Liang Fu, termed quantum weight.“For a long time, it’s been unclear how to quantify the quantumness of a material,” Fu says. “Quantum weight is very useful for this purpose. Basically, the higher the quantum weight of a material, the more quantum it is.”The researchers focused on a class of quantum materials with exotic electronic properties known as topological materials, eventually assigning over 16,000 materials scores on environmental impact, price, import resilience, and more.For the first time, the researchers found a strong correlation between the material’s quantum weight and how expensive and environmentally damaging it is.“That’s useful information because the industry really wants something very low-cost,” Spero says. “We know what we should be looking for: high quantum weight, low-cost materials. Very few materials being developed meet that criteria, and that likely explains why they don’t scale to industry.”The researchers identified 200 environmentally sustainable materials and further refined the list down to 31 material candidates that achieved an optimal balance of quantum functionality and high-potential impact.The researchers also found that several widely studied materials exhibit high environmental impact scores, indicating they will be hard to scale sustainably. “Considering the scalability of manufacturing and environmental availability and impact is critical to ensuring practical adoption of these materials in emerging technologies,” says Niroui.Guiding researchMany of the topological materials evaluated in the paper have never been synthesized, which limited the accuracy of the study’s environmental and cost predictions. But the authors say the researchers are already working with companies to study some of the promising materials identified in the paper.“We talked with people at semiconductor companies that said some of these materials were really interesting to them, and our chemist collaborators also identified some materials they find really interesting through this work,” Palacios says. “Now we want to experimentally study these cheaper topological materials to understand their performance better.”“Solar cells have an efficiency limit of 34 percent, but many topological materials have a theoretical limit of 89 percent. Plus, you can harvest energy across all electromagnetic bands, including our body heat,” Fu says. “If we could reach those limits, you could easily charge your cell phone using body heat. These are performances that have been demonstrated in labs, but could never scale up. That’s the kind of thing we’re trying to push forward."This work was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Energy
Science
Sustainable

Greenpeace threatens to sue crown estate for driving up cost of offshore wind

Environmental group accuses king’s property management company of ‘milking for profit’ its monopoly ownership of seabedGreenpeace is threatening to sue King Charles’s property management company, accusing it of exploiting its monopoly ownership of the seabed.The environmental lobby group alleges the crown estate has driven up costs for wind power developers and boosted its own profits, as well as the royal household’s income, due to the “aggressive” way it auctions seabed rights. Continue reading...

Greenpeace is threatening to sue King Charles’s property management company, accusing it of exploiting its monopoly ownership of the seabed.The environmental lobby group alleges the crown estate has driven up costs for wind power developers and boosted its own profits, as well as the royal household’s income, due to the “aggressive” way it auctions seabed rights.The crown estate, as the legal owner of the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is responsible for auctioning offshore wind rights. It has benefited from the huge growth in the industry, commanding hefty option fees from renewable energy developers to secure areas of the seabed to build their windfarms.It made a £1.1bn profit in its financial year ended in March, double its level just two years ago.Will McCallum, co-executive director at Greenpeace UK, said the estate should be “managing the seabed in the interest of the nation and the common good, not as an asset to be milked for profit and outrageous bonuses”.“We should leave no stone unturned in looking for solutions to lower energy bills that are causing misery to millions of households,” he said.“Given how crucial affordable bills and clean energy are to the government’s agenda, the chancellor should use her powers of direction to ask for an independent review of how these auctions are run. If the problem isn’t fixed before the next round, we may need to let a court decide whether or not what’s happening is lawful.”Greenpeace argues the crown estate has a legal duty not to exploit its monopoly position as owner of the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but that it is now in breach of this.The lobby group said it was concerned the crown estate was rationing supply of the seabed to protect high prices, and argued this could harm the development of offshore wind power in the UK.The crown estate has reportedly rejected Greenpeace’s claims, arguing the lobby group has misinterpreted the estate’s legal duties.About 12% of crown estate profits flow to the monarchy to fund its work. This was lowered from 25% in 2023 to offset the rise in profits from offshore wind projects.skip past newsletter promotionOur morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe UK’s wind industry is at a critical juncture as the government plans to double onshore wind and quadruple offshore wind power capacity by the end of the decade.The crown estate, which also includes a portfolio of London properties and rural real estate, is worth £15bn. The property assets in London, which is concentrated around Regent Street and St James’s, are valued at £7.1bn.A spokesperson for the crown estate said: “Greenpeace has misunderstood the crown estate’s legal duties and leasing processes. Option fees are not fixed by the crown estate. They are set by the developers through open, competitive auctions and reflect market appetite at the time. As our net revenue is returned to the Treasury, option fees help to ensure that taxpayers benefit from the requisite value from the development of our scarce and precious seabed resource.“The crown estate is accelerating offshore wind in line with government policy to move forward the energy transition at pace and improve energy security.”The Treasury was approached for comment.

Energy
Government

Suggested Viewing

A Low Carbon Future for China’s Furnace Cities

China’s economic development and rapid urbanization has led to a dramatic rise in energy consumption due to excessive heating and air-conditioning causing carbon emissions of immense proportions. China’s government has set the ambitious target of reducing CO2 emissions by 40–45% by 2020 against the 2005 baseline. A UK/China-funded team working on how to solve the problem in some of the most extreme climate regions in China. The team discovers groundbreaking solutions using computational-fluid-dynamics simulations.

CO2
Energy
Climate

THE SPRAYER

In the land occupied with the sprayers army, no one has the right to grow any kind of plants either in public or private. So many of the people and soldiers do not even know how a plant grows or looks like, until one day one of the soldiers finds a seed buried deep down in the dust and his curiosity is just the beginning of something extraordinary, something big, something revolutionary.

Plants
CO2
Animation

The Heart Whisperer

A childhood discovery inspires a woman to push the boundaries of our compassion in this true story. The esteemed Earthlings creator, Shaun Monson, weaves together archived news clips, never seen before arrest footage, and current interviews to tell this tale that crosses countries and decades. Cameo appearances by Joaquin Phoenix and other famous animal advocates.

Water
Energy
Waste

Fracking the System: Colorado's Oil and Gas Wars

Fracking the System is a political thriller documentary from the front lines of climate justice activism in Colorado. When a fracking mega-site gets moved from a White neighborhood to a BIPOC neighborhood, a concerned mother fights to try and stop it. This feature film is an investigative exposé about the harms of fracking, the lengths to which the government is complicit with industrial pollution, and the nefarious tactics that the oil and gas industry uses to undermine democratic elections.

Activism
Government
Documentary

Resilience

In 1998, a vast power grid serving 5 million people in Canada was destroyed by an ice storm. Twenty years later researchers of that disaster are developing a new kind of resilient power grid. Based in part on the book The Grid and the Village, the film explores how to protect grids and the people they serve from war, terrorist attack, and extreme weather.

Energy
Climate
Crisis

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.